lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectQuestion about your git habits
    Date
    I've been making myself more familiar with git lately and I'm curious what 
    habits others have adopted. (I know there are a few documents in circulation
    that deal with using git to work on the kernel but I don't think this has
    been specifically covered).

    My question is: If you're working on multiple things at once, do you tend to
    clone the entire repository repeatedly into a series of separate working
    directories and do your work there, then pull that work (possibly comprising
    a series of "temporary" commits) back into a separate local master
    respository with --squash, either into "master" or into a branch containing
    the new feature?

    Or perhaps you create a temporary topical branch for each thing you are
    working on, and commit arbitrary changes then checkout another branch when
    you need to change gears, finally --squashing the intermediate commits when a
    particular piece of work is done?

    I'm using git to manage my project and I'm trying to determine the most
    optimal workflow I can. I figure that I'm going to have an "official" master
    repository for the project, and I want to keep the revision history clean in
    that repository (ie, no messy intermediate commits that don't compile or only
    implement a feature half way).

    On older projects I was using a certalized revision control system like
    *cough* Subversion *cough* and I'd create separate branches which I'd check
    out into their own working trees.

    It seems to me that having multiple working trees (effectively, cloning
    the "master" repository every time I need to make anything but a trivial
    change) would be most effective under git as well as it doesn't require
    creating messy, intermediate commits in the first place (but allows for them
    if they are used). But I wonder how that approach would scale with a project
    whose git repo weighed hundreds of megs or more. (With a centralized rcs, of
    course, you don't have to lug around a copy of the whole project history in
    each working tree.)

    Insight appreciated, and I apologize if I've failed to RTFM somewhere.

    Thanks,
    Chase


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-23 02:03    [W:3.122 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site